Dobrow declares victor in WSJ-Times turf war

DATELINE: MONDAY morning at the localnewsstand. As I reach for my billfold, theproprietor gestures toward a sticker plas-tered on the overhang: “New today: TheWall Street Journal’s ‘Greater New York‘section.”A furrowed brow and disoriented“guh?” announce my befuddlement.How hadn’t I heard about this? Surelyany such launch by a cocksure mediacolossus would have been heralded withgrand proclamations delivered over thedin of journalists scrounging for freeradishes, or at least the sort of I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? braggadocionative to Bret Michaels’ parlor room.

Sensing this disconnect, the proprietor directs me to the small print. There I
learn that a grand, horrible newspaper
slapfight is about to be waged and that I
live smack dab in the middle of its demographic battlefield.

This is revolutionary, I think. A newspaper named after a street in New York
City—a newspaper that has spent the last
120-odd years chronicling the ups and
downs of the city’s preeminent industry
(no offense, musical theater or class warfare), no less—potentially choosing to
write about that city’s zoning kerfuffles
and condom kiosks? So brilliant! So bold!

I stop hyperventilating and plunk
down my two bucks, and practically float
home. I clear myself a comfortable place
on the couch, lay out the crisp broad
sheets before me and then ...

Then nothing. On Tuesday and
Wednesday, ditto. The Journal, it seems,
has showed up at the first battle of The
Great Newspaper War of 2010 armed
with nothing but a spoon and some
empty paint cans.

One could argue that it’s unfair to
judge the “Greater New York” section in
its first days, that all verdicts should be
withheld until it gets several volumes
under its belt. Well, by declaring its
expectation to cause a “revolution in
regional coverage,” the Journal has forfeited its grace period.

The direct target, based on statements
from folks in and around the Journal, is
The New York Times. But while the
Times’ metro coverage has seen better
days, no rational human being comparing the Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday metro sections of the two
papers could possibly conclude that the
trash-talking challenger will topple the
heavyweight title holder anytime soon.

From the Journal’s perspective, thethinking goes something like this:“Greater New York” will prompt readersunaware of the Journal’s expansionbeyond its business-only heritage to sam-ple the paper for the first time in a while.Once they do, they’ll note how the paperhas become more rounded and lessbrainy, and pledge their undying fealty.In theory, this makes sense. In practice, itfails to account for the possibility thatthese readers might care more about thelocal news than about the other stuff,however worldly and brilliant, that sur-rounds it.

NOT SO GREAT:
By declaring its
expectation to cause a
“revolution in regional
coverage,” the
Journal has forfeited
its grace period.

New York lunch eateries and the “real
feel” temperature. The sports coverage
pulls a groin straining for relevance; its
credibility isn’t helped by an unfortunate
tendency to report the news way after
the fact.

All this would be forgotten if the core
news delivered, but the section’s front-page fare fails to excite. While an analysis of teacher-absence data connects,
much of the rest of it comes across as
scattershot: a report on the imminent end
of the Jim Calhoun era at U-Conn, a
let’s-say-nice-things-about-nice-rich-people “Donor of the Day“ piece on Dr.
Atkins’ widow, a story on the killer Yale
doctor that reads like AP copy, etc.

There’s nothing wrong with these
stories, which inform reliably enough.
But few pass the “who cares?” test.

Just compare those metro-area offerings with what the Times has monitored
this week: a barista walkout in precious
Park Slope, the continued enforcement
of loitering laws long since deemed
unconstitutional, the Sisyphean process
of naming a co-op building, an “
attendance court” for collared class-cutters.
The Times’ metro section neatly balances the outrage and the quirk, while
the Journal’s just plods along like an out-of-towner.

The Wall Street Journal remains a pillar of my media world. Its business coverage trumps anything comparable published in the English language anywhere
on earth. But the “Greater New York”
section feels like a vanity project, more
like a tacked-on third garage or a Mick
Jagger solo album than a fully realized
entity. Whatever happens on the finan-cial/advertising front, “Greater New
York” vs. the Times projects as a rout
editorially.

DANONE FIGHTS DAMAGING VIRAL SLURS INARGENTINA WITH SMEAR CAMPAIGN OF ITS OWN

BUENOS AIRES ( AdAge.com) — Danone
countered a vicious viral attack on its
Actimel yogurt brand in Argentina by
fighting rumors with ... other rumors.
As marketers struggle to find new ways
to protect their brands from social-media
onslaughts, Danone is rewriting the
playbook with its Creator of Rumors
(Creador de Rumores) digital effort.

A few months ago, a viral e-mail circulated in Argentina that directed people to
a webpage describing supposed facts
about Actimel, such as that the probiotic
yogurt brand was addictive, destroyed the
stomach’s natural flora, and could harm
children’s health. Other blogs quickly
picked up the plot, and the damaging stories were soon the top ones returned in
online searches for Actimel.

Initially, Danone used traditional
means to fight back.

“The first step was to react, respond-ing to all bloggers and websites who post-ed news about Actimel with the wrongmessage,” said Andrea Fogarolli, brandmanager in Argentina for Actimel, aninternational brand known as DanActivein the U.S. “[We] also answered ques-tions that came to our consumer-infor-mation website. As a second step, we aireda commercial where we spoke specificallyabout the malicious e-mail.”In the TV spot, Daniel Mainatti, a pop-ular young investigative journalist, walksthrough a park surrounded by familiesplaying with their children, and talksabout the yogurt brand: “You can trustActimel. Anyone can have it. It’s alwaysgood to have an Actimel.”By February, the company was readyto try something new. Enter local digitalagency Sinus, with a campaign encourag-ing people to go to a new rumor-creationwebsite called creadorderumores.com. Atthe site, visitors can generate rumors andcreate a list of friends to send the link con-taining the rumor. The site includes asample rumor followed by the takeawaymessage: “Don’t believe everything yousee on the internet. I’ll show you howeasy it is to spread a rumor about you.”“What we are trying to do is showpeople how easy it is to lie and deceive onthe web, and how careful we as con-sumers must be to get truths aboutbrands,” said Sebastian Garcia Padin,owner of Sinus.

YOUR FIB HERE:

Via the Actimel effort,
people can claim to
have won the lottery,
a trip to the World Cup
or to be undertaking a
tour with a Britsh rock
band.

[digital] experience,” she said. “Now wesee the web environment makes it neces-sary to be always present. We’re just real-izing that, and this action shows that if wedo something fun, a lot of people gethooked and viralize it.”Danone said the initial viral slursabout Actimel being harmful didn’t hurtthe brand’s sales, but declined to discloseany figures. Industry experts estimateActimel has about a 5% share ofArgentina’s yogurt market—but close to80% of the priobiotic segment—andsales of about $2 million a year.

“This was Actimel’s first digital shot,
but it should have been its tenth,” Mr.
Padin said. “Brands must not leave gaps
wide open.”